And that doesn't even include the frequent dirty, after-the-fact (well after they don't have the ball, and are in no position to block for anyone) hits on QBs almost every single game. Sure, there's a chorus of, "but that was a legal hit" from Lions fans ... but that doesn't make them not dirty. Or not dangerous to the other player. So he gets away with some stuff because it is legal - and if there is ANY question about the legality of other stuff, he gets what is coming to him.

Newsflash, you see it from almost every single lineman on every single team, in every single game. If you don't, you're either blind or not watching. Suh started with a handful of legitimately dirty hits very early on and was labeled a bad guy from the start. Other, very legal hits have been called dirty and fined (and are continued to be replayed in the media as dirty) which is BS. You say he gets away with dirty legal stuff? The forearm shiver to cutler, the barber hair tackle, the cutler piggyback ride. All legal and all have been done regularly in the NFL and continue to be done. Why is suh singled out by being fined for these legal hits? They're not dirty for anyone else other than suh. Why? Why are these reviewed and called dirty when they're within the rules? Why is he being fined for doing things in the rules?

Remember when Briggs (maybe it was peppers) closelined a lion a few years ago and basically gave him a forearm to the throat? That was legal, but dirty IMO. No foul, no fines. Suh does that to cutters back to avoid a horse collar - dirty play, fine, foul. It's BS and you can't deny it.

I personally think the digital choice of playing either like a thug or a sissy is a false one.

Players are still flying around and making tackles... and hardly any get fined. Sure - more than before, and the rules make playing defense harder. But it isn't like the games have become sissy-fests where manly-men don't feel comfortable watching them. So let's not blow this out of proportion because it is a Lion in the spotlight.

This is from NFL.com:

Quote:

Accusations of dirty play have followed Suh his entire career. He's been fined five times in his first three seasons, mostly for illegal hits on quarterbacks. His most infamous play came on Thanksgiving in 2011, when he was fined and suspended for stomping Green Bay Packers guard Evan Dietrich-Smith.

That incident isn't to be confused with the incident that occurred last Thanksgiving, when Suh was fined $30,000 for kicking Houston Texans quarterback Matt Schaub in the groin.

And that doesn't even include the frequent dirty, after-the-fact (well after they don't have the ball, and are in no position to block for anyone) hits on QBs almost every single game. Sure, there's a chorus of, "but that was a legal hit" from Lions fans ... but that doesn't make them not dirty. Or not dangerous to the other player. So he gets away with some stuff because it is legal - and if there is ANY question about the legality of other stuff, he gets what is coming to him.

Every Dline on every team takes those same shots at the QB every single game. If it's within the rules it's not a dirty play so stop using it as a knock against Suh.

Your Bears had 6 unnecessary roughness penalties last year same as the Lions. Also had 2 roughing the passer penalties which is the same as the Lions to go along with their 2 personal foul penalties which was one less than the Lions at 3. The Raven had 11 personal fouls and 16 unnecessary roughness calls last season. Whats happening to Suh has nothing to do with making the league safer and everything to do with appearing like they they actually give a damn.

September 10th, 2013, 9:49 pm

The Legend

HC – Jim Caldwell

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pmPosts: 4699Location: WSU

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

njroar wrote:

The Legend wrote:

njroar wrote:

Clipping is a block in the back. Suh was in front of the player and side cracked down. Last year this was completely legal. But you're right, clipping is and always has been a penalty. The ref got it wrong when he called it a block in the back, and the media has been repeating that he hit him from behind, which is false.

seriously what is the new rule? i keep hearing how suh was victim to a new rule, what is the new rule?

You now can't side block a player. You have to turn and face them. Suh did it correctly by last years rule because he was in front of the player. Ever since Cushing got hurt by it last year, they wanted to change it.

Sure, there's a chorus of, "but that was a legal hit" from Lions fans ... but that doesn't make them not dirty. Or not dangerous to the other player. So he gets away with some stuff because it is legal - and if there is ANY question about the legality of other stuff, he gets what is coming to him.

If it's legal, it's legal. And the league should neither punish it, nor take account of it in deciding punishments for illegal stuff.

If the league has a problem with someone's legal play, they should have a problem with their own rules, not that player.

Here’s what The Detroit News’ Lions beat writers and columnists are saying about Ndamukong Suh’s $100,000 fine for his low block on Vikings center John Sullivan.

Chris McCosky: It was not a dirty play. It was not a smart play, but it was not dirty. He was spinning around, saw DeAndre Levy running toward the end zone and tried to block the first thing he saw. I believe him when he says he targeted the waist and got himself into a bad position. But it doesn’t matter. The problem is Suh has exhausted reasonable doubt. He has too many prior offenses. Next time he will be suspended, and it won’t have to be for an egregiously dirty play. It’s unfortunate because he is trying to be about the right things this year, but he’s still paying for past sins.

Josh Katzenstein: The penalty fits the crime, but for someone with as much money as Ndamukong Suh, it really isn’t a penalty at all. That’s why the next time Suh draws a personal foul for a dangerous play, it will be an automatic suspension. Suh is arguably the most athletic 300-pounder in the NFL, and with his amount of body control, he knows exactly what he’s doing on the field. He made a bone-headed play that could’ve ended John Sullivan’s career, and the NFL made him pay appropriately.

Bob Wojnowski: I don’t know if Ndamukong Suh’s blindside block was definitely dirty, but it was definitely unnecessary. And that’s what he needs to change if he wants to be a leader of the Lions. He deserved the $100,000 fine but a suspension would have been excessive. He must realize he can keep his aggressive edge without unnecessary recklessness.

John Niyo: Suh went low, and that’s a no-no, so the league went high. Higher than I thought: I figured he’d get the $75,000 James Harrison treatment as a repeat offender. Luckily for the Lions, Suh gets to hit the road with them for critical road games the next couple weeks.

Terry Foster: The NFL is tired of Suh’s act. His next major rules violation will result in suspension. This is not a witch hunt. Suh’s actions were just dumb.With that said, I am waiting word on the Clay Matthews fine for his out-of-bounds and out-of-line hit of Colin Kaepernick.

I think this is ridiculous! Basically the NFL is asking Suh to play penalty free football for the rest of his career. That's absurd and nobody else has to play to that standard. Even if it was an illegal hit, it was certainly not done intentionally. Therefore, the 15 yds and TD wiped away was sufficient penalty.

_________________

September 11th, 2013, 6:46 am

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

I think the rhetoric of career-ending hits has to stop. There isn't a knee injury out there that would end a career anymore. 20 years ago, yes, but not now. It makes it sound 100x worse than it is. Concussions are the major threat to careers now. Knees are a common injury now.

September 11th, 2013, 10:57 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

njroar wrote:

I think the rhetoric of career-ending hits has to stop. There isn't a knee injury out there that would end a career anymore. 20 years ago, yes, but not now. It makes it sound 100x worse than it is. Concussions are the major threat to careers now. Knees are a common injury now.

A part of the commonality of knee injuries has to do with newer rules to prevent concussions. If you cant hit high anymore, what choice is there but to go low.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

September 11th, 2013, 11:29 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10398Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

I.E. wrote:

I personally think the digital choice of playing either like a thug or a sissy is a false one.

Players are still flying around and making tackles... and hardly any get fined. Sure - more than before, and the rules make playing defense harder. But it isn't like the games have become sissy-fests where manly-men don't feel comfortable watching them. So let's not blow this out of proportion because it is a Lion in the spotlight.

This is from NFL.com:

Quote:

Accusations of dirty play have followed Suh his entire career. He's been fined five times in his first three seasons, mostly for illegal hits on quarterbacks. His most infamous play came on Thanksgiving in 2011, when he was fined and suspended for stomping Green Bay Packers guard Evan Dietrich-Smith.

That incident isn't to be confused with the incident that occurred last Thanksgiving, when Suh was fined $30,000 for kicking Houston Texans quarterback Matt Schaub in the groin.

And that doesn't even include the frequent dirty, after-the-fact (well after they don't have the ball, and are in no position to block for anyone) hits on QBs almost every single game. Sure, there's a chorus of, "but that was a legal hit" from Lions fans ... but that doesn't make them not dirty. Or not dangerous to the other player. So he gets away with some stuff because it is legal - and if there is ANY question about the legality of other stuff, he gets what is coming to him.

A legal hit is NOT dirty. That's an insane statement from you. Tell me, what is dirty about hitting a QB a split second after he has released the ball? Is a defensive player supposed to let up thinking that the QB is going to throw it? If that were the case, then EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER in the league is DIRTY by your definition. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

You can slam Suh all you want, I could give a crap. But don't start making foolish statements like that. If it is a legal hit, then there is nothing dirty about it, particularly in the pussy league that Goodell has now created.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

September 11th, 2013, 5:59 pm

jrd66

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pmPosts: 922Location: Linden, MI

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

njroar wrote:

I think the rhetoric of career-ending hits has to stop. There isn't a knee injury out there that would end a career anymore. 20 years ago, yes, but not now. It makes it sound 100x worse than it is. Concussions are the major threat to careers now. Knees are a common injury now.

Rhetoric is right. Show me one of Suh's plays that he's been fined on that anyone was injured on. I doubt any player missed the next play after one of these murderous displays. It is BS, but Suh has to understand where he is on the field and make good decisions when to hold up on guys some times.

_________________OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?

September 11th, 2013, 7:45 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

Hey y'all you're missing the point. Goodell and the NFL want the new and improved safer football. We don't need all that aggression and raw violence in a sport. Let's make it the safer, more family friendly kind where we all just get along and sing cum bai ya on the 50 yard line. The players with the worst singing voices get the laundry, and the team with the best chorus gets the points. This isn't about "player safety" it's about creating a more generic, nutless, society where everyone is equal, and the unicorns can skip freely through the tulips, and where no one is responsible for their actions. I'm so glad that big brother and all of his cousins are watching over us, because we'd be screwed if we had to figure life out for ourselves.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

September 11th, 2013, 9:40 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

Good luck shouting down the league, folks. Reality is, the NFL is bigger, more popular and more lucrative than it has ever been. It's a very big business, doing business the way it sees fit, to make money.

The league clearly believes Suh is a problem to the league (business) for doing things in ways that they find highly undesirable or risky. He's an employee the the "Lions division" that is failing a performance evaluation. They've clearly focused on him, and there is a point they ARE going to make - either he's going to change, or he is going to be out of games.

September 12th, 2013, 3:50 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10398Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

I.E. wrote:

Good luck shouting down the league, folks. Reality is, the NFL is bigger, more popular and more lucrative than it has ever been. It's a very big business, doing business the way it sees fit, to make money.

The league clearly believes Suh is a problem to the league (business) for doing things in ways that they find highly undesirable or risky. He's an employee the the "Lions division" that is failing a performance evaluation. They've clearly focused on him, and there is a point they ARE going to make - either he's going to change, or he is going to be out of games.

Still waiting for the league to crack down on the Clay Matthews maneuver. Is that something they endorse? If so, could Suh get away with that?

If you don't want to believe the Lions as a team are getting singled out, that's fine. But the evidence is pretty strong that the league definitely is. The BS with Suh, the CJ touchdowns disallowed over a rule that is not applied consistently....it's crap. The league has it's 'golden boys', and it has its 'bad boys'. Suh hasn't exactly been a choir boy in the league, but neither has some of the favorites, like Clay Matthews.

Still waiting to hear on the leagues fine for DeCastro blowing out the knee of his team mate, when in fact he was attempting to blow out the knee of Sammie Hill. Oh...but that's OK, because he's on the Steelers...and they are one of the 'good guys'. Also, because offensive linemen attacking the knees of defensive linemen is perfectly OK. Last time I checked, hitting a guy from the front on his knee can do as much, or more, damage than a side shot to the knee. Unless you're a flamingo, the knee doesn't go backwards either.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

September 12th, 2013, 5:23 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

mk... you clearly have not been reading for comprehension.

September 12th, 2013, 11:04 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10398Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

I.E. wrote:

mk... you clearly have not been reading for comprehension.

I comprehend things just fine. I also understand that the NFL is a business. But in the sports business, when you heavily discipline one person for something, and allow others to do the same without repercussion, you are endangering your product. The league SHOULD adopt uniform rules and guidelines for suspensions and fines. They have NOT. It is all in the hands of Goodell, and his discipline tactics are skewed beyond comprehension.

For instance...Goodell just fined DeAngelo Hall for a horse collar tackle. He only fined him $20k. Hall was fined THREE times last season...once for getting in the face of an official (no contact).

All three fines Hall got last season doesn't total up to what Suh got fined for this one incident. The block he threw was legal last year. The horse collar tackle has been illegal for nearly a decade.

If you can't see how utterly ridiculous this is, then you are the one lacking comprehension. And you also don't have the foresight to see just how dangerous a precedent he is setting by playing favorites with teams and players.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

September 13th, 2013, 8:55 am

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Report: Suh facing league discipline for low block again

What is ridiculous to me, is any thinking that behavior like stomping on heads, kicking a guy in the nuts or cheap-shotting a guy's knees is somehow similar to a horse collar tackle or even a late tackle out of bounds. I won't discuss the specific incidents. Lions fans for the most part seem unable to look at the story objectively - it's like family defending family, and it is kind of embarrassing and impossible to argue with when it happens. We'll just agree to disagree on all that, and we'll eventually see if what happens on the field & sideline supports our individual opinions.

And again - all that is beside the point anyway. You can criticize the league and the league's decisions all you want, and claim that it is hurting its product. Just understand the only place the product is diminished is in your own eyes, and in the eyes of other fans who are OK with the way Schwartz's team (especially Suh) behaves. The league has already made clear that it has made decisions about how it will react to what players do, and where it wants to emphasize rules so its product looks the way it wants. And the product is very clearly not being hurt - that isn't up for debate, is it? No - it's not. So there's no need for this conversation, really.